Before I get too deep into this, let me say that I was shocked and surprised by the numerous and mostly helpful responses I got to my shoe woes blog and will follow up with another one as soon as I have had a chance to test a few more shoe types out. Now onward to today’s blog.
I have a pretty long history of strength training, one that predates my ultra running “career” by decades.
The best shape I was ever in my life was when I combined intervals with an occasional 5 or 6 mile run, lots of plyo and regular weight lifting and body weight training.
I had it all--speed, reasonable endurance, explosive and absolute strength all in a good proportion.
The demands of an ultra race at altitude are far different than the “general training” I was doing and of course when you specialize you always lose some generalization.
I do almost no traditional lower body strength training at this juncture although I will most probably start doing some one legged stuff soon for the weeks that I am not putting in the bigger mileage.
I have a steady repetitive upper body program that mixes in abs and core along with some specific functional hip flexors stuff, again one legged, and kettle bell.
My upper body program is pretty old fashioned. Some would recognize the term “classic 5’s” which refers to the near maximum lifting toned down just a bit in to a 5-3-2 rep patter with brief rests in between for 3 to 4 sets of 10.
This program will make you bigger but it is primarily designed to add steady strength to your program and for me personally it works like a charm. Just today I hit the very interesting phase of the training that adds significant weight (12 lbs. to my overhead pressing and 22 to my bench) literally from just a few sessions, sometimes several pounds per session.
Of course when your run long or run fast your weights go down but this program will make you much stronger in a relatively short period of time and as I said put on some nice lean mass.
I would not advise it to someone who is new to strength training, however. In that case just pick up one of those awful “strength training for runners” books that shows a very broad based general strength training program and use it for 2 months before you try any of the above.
OK, so why do I care about mass? I am in a happy stable relationship, not in prison or a street gang so I don’t need to be “intimidating”, don’t need to impress anyone and have long since passed the 18-25 year old testosterone driven male syndrome (I can hardly stand to look at “ Men’s Health”! LOL).
Well in spite of the fact that I rail against the “muscle burns fat” articles as misleading because it take months to put on natural muscle and it adds at best 100 calories per day per 10 pounds of muscle mass gained. The average no drugger person will take a year to put on 10 pounds of lean muscle and of course runners will take far longer!
But there is a point where having extra muscle actually helps you lean out and if you work to maintain it while you are increasing your mileage you will lose more fat and even a few more pounds. You’ll look a lot better too.
But that still is not the strange reason I work to add muscle before a big race. The real reason is that I noticed that most of the “everyday” runners that did well were stockier and beefier than your typical marathon runners.
Again, people, understand we are talking average athletes here--not world class winners!
I started to realize that the starvation reflex does indeed happen in races where you are out there for hours on end and thus muscle becomes your fuel and fat stores are (relatively) conserved. So I train to build muscle so I have some to feed to my heart, lungs and legs while I am out there long after the glycogen is gone and the fat has gone underground to try to save itself from impending doom! Now I am not saying you don’t burn fat in these races. YOU DO and lots of it. The actual physiologic full blown starvation reflex does not take that long to start working though as we see signs of it with a simple overnight fast, which we then break (breakfast!).
So for those of you who are just trying to survive these long runs like me, take my advice--put on some size in your upper body at least. Most of us can leave the lower body to Mother Nature and the trail as long as we stretch!
'Til next time train hard!
Doc
P.S. some of you have asked about my book on ultra running. It’s taken a back seat to “The Immortality Edge”, a book I am co-writing with Mike Fossel MD PhD and Greta Blackburn that shows you how to lengthen your telomeres to live longer and healthier. NO, ultra running is not part of the routines!!!
Friday, March 12, 2010
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Shoe woes
Normally, and in the future, I promise you a more positive blog but I gotta get something off my chest.
Two years ago when I first discovered that shoes were one of the most critical components of a successful Ultra, I went through a painful (literally and figuratively) period of trial and error.
I found the following:
1) A shoe that was good for a comfortable ride for 5 or 10 miles might lead to tendonitis because of lack of support at 20 or 30 miles.
2) Your feet do swell when you run long.
3) For a long haul over rough terrain most shoes won’t cut it because they are not real trail runners: they’re road shoes, prettied up (or actually usually uglied up) to look like trail runners but they don’t have it where it counts.
4) Gore-Tex, while waterproof, is not all that good for trail runners because no one blends it with all the other elements. I tried some Inov-8's and some other Gore-Tex shoes and found them way way too flexible and light weight for the type of running and my lousy feet.
So I eventually found my beloved favorite, the Montrail 2008 Hardrock, in 13 EE and bought a bunch of them. They were like Mack trucks with almost no flexibility, tremendous support, motion control and cushioning all wrapped up in one.
But they were not indestructible and even though I had 6 pairs they eventually wore out and got to the point where no amount of repair would make them serviceable again.
So merrily I thought I would just lateralize into the “Mountain Masochist” Montrial’s replacement for the Hardrock.
What a mistake!!! The MM is lightweight and flexes if you sneeze. It’s a totally different shoe and the other old model Montrial’s just never cut it. Of course they still make them!!!
I suppose the proper response would be to be grateful that Montrail made a great shoe, thank them for it and move on. But it’s a royal PIA and so I think I am actually angrier at them for D/Cing the Hardrock, replacing it with a completely bogus shoe and leaving me in the same boat I was to spend probably thousands until I find the right shoe again
Do you hear me Montrail, you idiots? What is wrong with you!!!! You were at least making a real trail runner that everyone raved about and loved. They were always in short supply so you can’t tell me they did not sell.
Such is the way of shoe manufactures--they always have to change things and make them worse!
None of the brand names work either.
The New Balance 910 is OK but it’s got too much motion in the toe box.
The Aetrex can’t make a size that fits--the 12 is too small--the 13 is too big and there's nothing in between.
The Brooks Beast is not right for me. My favorite road running shoe, the Triax Structure, is to narrow in the toe box and flexes like a newspaper in the wind--clearly a runner masquerading as a trail runner.
So I am at the same point again: Bad feet, lousy biomechanics, a big wide size needed to accommodate the armor plated orthotics and no place to go!
While this may seem funny and was intended to stir a laugh or two, it is truly a serious problem for anyone who needs their shoes to actually be dedicated trail runners. I understand the marketing value and the need to not invest in a small segment of the running world but to call your shoes "trail runners" when I can bend them in half with no effort is plain bogus. No on, no one, NO ONE who runs on real trails-- no matter how perfect their feet and biomechanics are, no matter how much or how little pronation, suppination, etc, etc they have-- benefits from a wimpy shoe.
So, manufactures, especially you MONTRAIL, who abandoned me... listen up: don’t fix what ain’t broke!
On the plus side I called them (Montrail), something I rarely do but probably need to do more of, and spoke to “Chris” who recommended the AT+ and the not-yet-available Sabino, so I will try them. As a matter of fact, I am wearing the AT+ as we speak and I can tell you it does not feel anything like the Hardrock in terms of overall cushioning. BUT…
Here’s hoping because nothing is more elemental than what is on your foot.
Oh Yeah, I guess I should comment on the current craze of barefoot running based on the Massai and other running tribes. First off, if you have any kind of below-the-knee tendon problems, do not run or even walk far in any of the rocker bottom shoes without going into it slowly. They're hard on the Achilles unless you have perfect biomechanics.
As far as barefoot running I am aware that certain Mexican and African tribes do it. But when I start seeing people at my local races, which are on the very rough rocky (sharp, nasty rocks) trails of Eastern PA, I will guarantee you that fad will last one race--or more like one block. When your feet are shreded to ribbons, don’t cry on my shoulder! LOL, MORONS!!!
And people look at ME funny for using poles! Until next time: keep training.
Dr Dave
Two years ago when I first discovered that shoes were one of the most critical components of a successful Ultra, I went through a painful (literally and figuratively) period of trial and error.
I found the following:
1) A shoe that was good for a comfortable ride for 5 or 10 miles might lead to tendonitis because of lack of support at 20 or 30 miles.
2) Your feet do swell when you run long.
3) For a long haul over rough terrain most shoes won’t cut it because they are not real trail runners: they’re road shoes, prettied up (or actually usually uglied up) to look like trail runners but they don’t have it where it counts.
4) Gore-Tex, while waterproof, is not all that good for trail runners because no one blends it with all the other elements. I tried some Inov-8's and some other Gore-Tex shoes and found them way way too flexible and light weight for the type of running and my lousy feet.
So I eventually found my beloved favorite, the Montrail 2008 Hardrock, in 13 EE and bought a bunch of them. They were like Mack trucks with almost no flexibility, tremendous support, motion control and cushioning all wrapped up in one.
But they were not indestructible and even though I had 6 pairs they eventually wore out and got to the point where no amount of repair would make them serviceable again.
So merrily I thought I would just lateralize into the “Mountain Masochist” Montrial’s replacement for the Hardrock.
What a mistake!!! The MM is lightweight and flexes if you sneeze. It’s a totally different shoe and the other old model Montrial’s just never cut it. Of course they still make them!!!
I suppose the proper response would be to be grateful that Montrail made a great shoe, thank them for it and move on. But it’s a royal PIA and so I think I am actually angrier at them for D/Cing the Hardrock, replacing it with a completely bogus shoe and leaving me in the same boat I was to spend probably thousands until I find the right shoe again
Do you hear me Montrail, you idiots? What is wrong with you!!!! You were at least making a real trail runner that everyone raved about and loved. They were always in short supply so you can’t tell me they did not sell.
Such is the way of shoe manufactures--they always have to change things and make them worse!
None of the brand names work either.
The New Balance 910 is OK but it’s got too much motion in the toe box.
The Aetrex can’t make a size that fits--the 12 is too small--the 13 is too big and there's nothing in between.
The Brooks Beast is not right for me. My favorite road running shoe, the Triax Structure, is to narrow in the toe box and flexes like a newspaper in the wind--clearly a runner masquerading as a trail runner.
So I am at the same point again: Bad feet, lousy biomechanics, a big wide size needed to accommodate the armor plated orthotics and no place to go!
While this may seem funny and was intended to stir a laugh or two, it is truly a serious problem for anyone who needs their shoes to actually be dedicated trail runners. I understand the marketing value and the need to not invest in a small segment of the running world but to call your shoes "trail runners" when I can bend them in half with no effort is plain bogus. No on, no one, NO ONE who runs on real trails-- no matter how perfect their feet and biomechanics are, no matter how much or how little pronation, suppination, etc, etc they have-- benefits from a wimpy shoe.
So, manufactures, especially you MONTRAIL, who abandoned me... listen up: don’t fix what ain’t broke!
On the plus side I called them (Montrail), something I rarely do but probably need to do more of, and spoke to “Chris” who recommended the AT+ and the not-yet-available Sabino, so I will try them. As a matter of fact, I am wearing the AT+ as we speak and I can tell you it does not feel anything like the Hardrock in terms of overall cushioning. BUT…
Here’s hoping because nothing is more elemental than what is on your foot.
Oh Yeah, I guess I should comment on the current craze of barefoot running based on the Massai and other running tribes. First off, if you have any kind of below-the-knee tendon problems, do not run or even walk far in any of the rocker bottom shoes without going into it slowly. They're hard on the Achilles unless you have perfect biomechanics.
As far as barefoot running I am aware that certain Mexican and African tribes do it. But when I start seeing people at my local races, which are on the very rough rocky (sharp, nasty rocks) trails of Eastern PA, I will guarantee you that fad will last one race--or more like one block. When your feet are shreded to ribbons, don’t cry on my shoulder! LOL, MORONS!!!
And people look at ME funny for using poles! Until next time: keep training.
Dr Dave
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
